Nice looking but I would have thought the towing would be more. The infotainment screen looks very precariously situated unless it slides back down into the dash when the cars off. I usually don't mind when the screens setup like that (i.e. like in the Navigator), but in this instance, it just looks flimsy.

That's what I thought at first, too. But the more I think about it, it makes sense where it is located. The HVAC and redundant controls are easily reached, not buried low like many tend to be. And the NAV screen is mounted almost at eye level. Beautiful it is not, but ergonomic it is.

not me. the 2.3TT is a modern and powerful motor that will do a fine job powering the Explorer. I'd also expect it in select forms of the next F-150.

Ford's only NA V6's are the industrial grade 3.5L and the fleet special 3.3L from the F-150. I havent been impressed with the 3.3L because you really have to wring it out to get any decent power...and it only sounds a little better than the 3.5L. trust me, the 2.3TT is a better choice.

The two Explorers I had were the sporty two-door Explorer Sport, and later the family four-door Explorer. This should be a welcome return to the RWD system. The only negative, at least for some, might be that in either engine you are limited to a turbo engine, which is fine for the five-year warranty, though I kept both of mine over five years. The good news is that the V6 turbo is a powerful engine and would be the choice for those who like the best performance.

When I sold my 2002 Saab 9-3 in 2016 with 125k miles on it the reason had nothing to do with engine reliability. Similarly my MkIV Jetta with the 1.8T in it was sold with just shy of 100k miles and absolutely zero engine or turbo issues. Craigslist is filled with 10 year old+ turbo cars with 100, 125, and 200k on them.

Why are turbo engines "fine for the five-year warranty"? This is no longer the 1980's, when turbos were problematic.

You're covered by the five-year powertrain warranty. Some people, including the F150 forums, have had some issues with the engine. For people who don't mind them, fine. But there is no longer a choice. Personally, having had two Explorers, I wouldn't hesitate buying one of these, especially knowing the first five years I wouldn't have to worry. The issue of choice is a personal one, though. Other SUV makers give customers that, whereas Ford, even on their large SUV (Expedition) does not. Not everyone wants a turbo, but many don't mind. But you're covered for the first five years anyway, and many people won't keep them that long.

When I sold my 2002 Saab 9-3 in 2016 with 125k miles on it the reason had nothing to do with engine reliability. Similarly my MkIV Jetta with the 1.8T in it was sold with just shy of 100k miles and absolutely zero engine or turbo issues. Craigslist is filled with 10 year old+ turbo cars with 100, 125, and 200k on them.

An engine without a turbo, though, is an engine with one less thing to worry about. Some of the truck forums discuss issues people have had with the V6 Ecoboost, and some of our construction guys here have traded in their F150s just before the five year warranty expires, so it's also a precautionary action. It's also a matter of choice. Ford doesn't offer customers a choice; other SUV makers do.

Are you going to post anything new when it comes to turbo engines? Or just regurgitate the same statement every...single...time?

You might tell the other SUV makers that they need turbos in their vehicles...they might listen, but maybe not. But it is good that you can still buy an NA V6 in some SUVs, so you will have a choice, smilez...for awhile!

Like the streamlined side profile, but overall, it’s too evolutionary. Hopefully, it will look newer in person. The front looks like the previous gen Highlander and rear not very different from the current Explorer. Happy to see the rear drive and new interior design.

Evolutionary design does not alienate existing buyers (of which there are MANY).

Not asking for a big revolutionary design, but this is little more than the 2012 Civic in terms of looks. Honda redesigned the Civic a year later based on all the bad press it received for not being a big enough step forward. Ford needs to push further.

Some nice surprises and some disappointments. Interior looks great minus the “tacked on” tablet. Exteriorwise the front end is goofy, the extensive and unnecessary use of hideous black plastic continues, the cheap looking blacked out A pillars remain, and the two tone Eddie Bauer is still missing. Guess the best looking Explorers will continue to be gen 1 and 2.

Rear is still ugly, but the rest looks real good. Even the interior (which isn't the norm for Ford). A lot of complaints of the 'tacked on tablet' and while I'm not a fan of these types of interfaces, this one looks decent. Maybe because it looks like it's removable. Maybe simply because it's different. Not sure

We have a 2016 Platinum and I think it's a great vehicle but the fit and finish leaves a lot to be desired. If they fixed this on this generation I will be in full agreement when the other half wants to replace our current model. I like that it's RWD based and the proportions are sleeker and more (albeit huge) wagon-ish to my likings.

We have a 2016 Platinum and I think it's a great vehicle but the fit and finish leaves a lot to be desired. If they fixed this on this generation I will be in full agreement when the other half wants to replace our current model. I like that it's RWD based and the proportions are sleeker and more (albeit huge) wagon-ish to my likings.

seems unlikely the fit and finish will be radically better - subpar fit/finish seem to be a ford trademark, like it is ingrained in them.

When the newest mustang redesign came out, sycophantic car magazines gushed about how great the fit and finish was over the old one. I went and checked it out - nope, still left tons to be desired.

RE the Explorer ST, it will be rear-drive I guess but the new Edge ST demonstrated that going forward ST will denote a trim package with some sporty upgrades, not a total reworking of the vehicle as a dedicated performance model. Ford is running a TV spot right now with an Edge “ST” and all it highlights is the car’s autonomous driving aids. That says it all.

Interesting move considering a FWD unibody platform usually makes for better packaging of the interior, so I am curious how this specs with the previous. Though the changes are subtle in appearance, the proportions are better—particularly the removal of the bulbous rear end. Hard to tell from the pictures if Ford upped their interior gain like Lincoln certainly has done.

GM -- always the great marketing company -- shows the way to sales nirvana, providing all manner of blazers off of redundant chassis. Ford gets their rear-wheel drive out first, providing substance to my expectation that the next big thing is the TrailBlazer (and the like). Only -- if I were the General -- I'd give a nod to Ford's offloaded Mazda subsidiary, calling mine the Chevrolet ChevyBlazer.

"...only fractionally longer overall, the wheelbase grows by six inches"

Love reading that. It's usually longer OAL and only fractionally longer WB. Love the proportions, but it's only okay looking. The Aviator is much more handsome.
Now, Ford, use this platform for a new more shapely Flex and maybe even a tall sedan. Oops, no sedans. Well on the Lincoln side.

"...only fractionally longer overall, the wheelbase grows by six inches" Love reading that. It's usually longer OAL and only fractionally longer WB. Love the proportions, but it's only okay looking. The Aviator is much more handsome. Now, Ford, use this platform for a new more shapely Flex and maybe even a tall sedan. Oops, no sedans. Well on the Lincoln side.

I guess it was RWD after all. Looks just like we expected on the outside, and I really like the interior.

If this signifies the effort Ford is going to be putting in future products, I'm optimistic about what the next Escape and Edge will look like. Its strange that they didn't really talk about efficiency or weight loss, both of which are pretty hot ticket features these days.

Yeah that was my thought regarding the efficiency/weight lose and fuel economy. With rwd/awd vehicles classically not doing as well in the miles per gallon department as FWD/AWD vehicles and some of the new tech (as we saw with the F-150 when it was new) adding weight, how does the new Explorer compare with the old? That being said, I am excited that the 2020 Explorer now more directly competes with the Dodge Durango! And with there being rumors of a future three row Jeep Grand Cherokee, should that prove true, all I can saw is: when competition is good the consumer wins!

Since the switch to FWD was supposed to be for fuel economy reasons, I'd assume they were able to achieve the at least the same fuel economy with this updated RWD platform or they wouldn't have made the switch - for a model to post worse numbers than its predecessor is bad for marketing.

I would also guess they got feedback from customers that want to tow (and don't need 4WD) and prefer RWD of FWD for that, though its a bit disappointing the tow ratings aren't competitive with the Durango, the only other RWD SUV in this class. I look forward to hearing the details as they come out.